Bigotry often reuses claims depicting migrants as criminals, a narrative passed down through generations. The 'what about the children' tactic invokes emotional concern for children's welfare while masking bad faith arguments against civil rights. While genuine concerns for children can lead to reasonable objections, bad faith uses invoke unsubstantiated claims about harm, exemplified in anti-suffrage rhetoric suggesting voting would neglect children's needs. This historical context illustrates how emotionally charged arguments can be misapplied to restrict rights unfairly.
Claims that migrants are disease-ridden criminals have persisted in the United States, passed down by descendants of migrants subjected to similar bigotry.
The 'what about the children' tactic is emotionally resonant as it plays on parental concern but has been weaponized to mask bad faith arguments.
Bad faith arguments without evidence claiming harm to children often oppose civil and political rights expansion, as seen in historical arguments against women's suffrage.
Despite good faith use of the 'what about the children' strategy, it has been exploited to restrict rights and amplify false claims about harm.
Collection
[
|
...
]